On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:06:47PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> > Il 27/09/2013 15:13, Aneesh Kumar K.V ha scritto:
> >> Alexander Graf writes:
> >>
> >>> On 27.09.2013, at 12:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>>
> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
> >>>
> >>> Missing pa
On 09/26/2013 12:30 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 09/23/2013 03:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >>> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:00:59AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:34:01PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:24:14PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 03:32:53PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 07:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 07:47:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Il 26/09/2013 19:19, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
> > On 2013-09-26 17:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 16/09/2013 10:11, Arthur Chunqi Li ha scritto:
> >>> This patch contains the follow
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:23:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> So far we've succeeded at making KVM and VFIO mostly unaware of each
> other, but there's any important point where that breaks down. Intel
> VT-d hardware may or may not support snoop control. When snoop
> control is available, i
On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 16:16 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:23:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > So far we've succeeded at making KVM and VFIO mostly unaware of each
> > other, but there's any important point where that breaks down. Intel
> > VT-d hardware may or may n
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:52:28AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 16:16 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:23:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > So far we've succeeded at making KVM and VFIO mostly unaware of each
> > > other, but there's any impo
Gleb Natapov writes:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:06:47PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>> > Il 27/09/2013 15:13, Aneesh Kumar K.V ha scritto:
>> >> Alexander Graf writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On 27.09.2013, at 12:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> >>>
>> From: "Aneesh K
Btw,
while I got your attention, on a not-really related topic: how do we
feel about adding support for specifying a non-contiguous set of cpus
for a numa node in qemu with the -numa option? I.e., like this, for
example:
x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -smp 8 -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0\;2\;4-5
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:35:16PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Gleb Natapov writes:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:06:47PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> >>
> >> > Il 27/09/2013 15:13, Aneesh Kumar K.V ha scritto:
> >> >> Alexander Graf writes:
> >> >>
> >>
On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 17:44 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:52:28AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 16:16 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:23:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > So far we've succeeded at making KVM an
On 2013-09-27 08:37, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 22:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 26/09/2013 19:47, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>>>
>>> If I only apply this hunk, which disables the preemption timer while
>>> in L1:
>>>
>>> @@ -8396,6 +8375,8 @@ static void nested_vmx_vmexit(struct kvm_vcpu *v
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Please, send any topic that you are interested in covering.
>
> Last week I forgot to send the call for topics. We still have a topic there.
>
> Thanks, Juan.
>
> Agenda so far:
> - Talk about qemu reverse executing (1s
13 matches
Mail list logo
